On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Stan Barber <s...@academ.com> wrote: > In this case, I am talking about an IPv6<->IPv6 NAT analogue to the current > IPv4<->IPv4 > NAT that is widely used with residential Internet service delivery today.
I don't necessarily see 6-6 nat being used as 4-4 is today, but I do think you'll see 6-6 nat in places. the current ietf draft for 'simple cpe security' (draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09.txt) is potentially calling for some measures like nat, not nat today but... > I believe that with IPv6 having much larger pool of addresses and each > residential > customer getting a large chunk of addresses will make IPv6<->IPv6 NAT > unnecessary. I > also believe that there will be IPv6 applications that require end-to-end > communications > that would be broken where NAT of that type used. Generally speaking, many > users of I think you'll see apps like this die... quickly, but that's just my opinion. > the Internet today have not had the luxury to experience the end-to-end model > because of > the wide use of NAT. > > Given that these customers today don't routinely multihome today, I > currently believe > that behavior will continue. Multihoming is generally more complicated and > expensive That's not obvious. if a low-cost (low pain, low price) means to multihome became available I'm sure it'd change... things like shim-6/mip-6 could do this. > than just having a single connection with a default route and most > residential customers > don't have the time, expertise or financial support to do that. So, the rate > of multihoming > will stay about the same even though the number of potential sites that could > multihome > could increase dramatically as IPv6 takes hold. > > Now, there are clearly lots of specifics here that may change over time > concerning what > the minimum prefix length for IPv6 advertisements might be acceptable in the > DFZ (some > want that to be /32, other are ok with something longer). I don't know how > that will change > over time. I also think that that peering will continue to increase and that > the prefix > lengths that peers will exchange with each other are and will continue to be > less > constrained by the conventions of the DFZ since the whole point of peering is > to be > mutually beneficial to those two peers and their customers. But, that being > said, I don't > think residential customers will routinely do native IPv6 peering either. I > think IP6-in-IPv4 > tunneling is and will continue to be popular and that already makes for some > interesting > IPv6 routing concerns. I firmly hope that ipv6-in-ipv4 dies... tunnel mtu problems are horrific to debug. (we'll see though!) -chris > Hope that clarifies my comment for you. Obviously, they are my opinions, not > facts. The > future will determine if I was seeing clearly or was mistaken in how these > things might > unfold. However, I think a discourse about these possibilities is helpful in > driving > consensus and that's one of the valuable things about mailing lists like this. > > > On Mar 18, 2010, at 8:20 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Stan Barber <s...@academ.com> wrote: >>> Ok. Let's get back to some basics to be sure we are talking about the same >>> things. >>> >>> First, do you believe that a residential customer of an ISP will get an >>> IPv6 /56 assigned for use in their home? Do >>> you believe that residential customer will often choose to multihome using >>> that prefix? Do you believe that on an >>> Internet that has its primary layer 3 protocol is IPv6 that a residential >>> customer will still desire to do NAT for reaching >> >> how are nat and ipv6 and multihoming related here? (also 'that has a >> primary layer 3 protocol as ipv6' ... that's a LONG ways off) >> >> -chris >> >>> IPv6 destinations? >>> >>> I am looking forward to your response. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 18, 2010, at 2:25 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> >>>>> On Mar 5, 2010, at 7:24 AM, William Herrin wrote: >>>>>> Joel made a remarkable assertion >>>>>> that non-aggregable assignments to end users, the ones still needed >>>>>> for multihoming, would go down under IPv6. I wondered about his >>>>>> reasoning. Stan then offered the surprising clarification that a >>>>>> reduction in the use of NAT would naturally result in a reduction of >>>>>> multihoming. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Stan Barber <s...@academ.com> wrote: >>>>> I was not trying to say there would be a reduction in multihoming. I was >>>>> trying to say that the rate of increase in non-NATed single-homing >>>>> would increase faster than multihoming. I guess I was not very clear. >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Stan, >>>> >>>> Your logic still escapes me. Network-wise there's not a lot of >>>> difference between a single-homed IPv4 /32 and a single-homed IPv6 >>>> /56. Host-wise there may be a difference but why would you expect that >>>> to impact networks? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Bill Herrin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> William D. Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us >>>> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> >>>> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 >>> >>> >>> > >